(October 28, 2015 at 10:43 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(October 27, 2015 at 10:54 pm)paulpablo Wrote: You're on repeat like a broken record.
Most atheists on here STATE things I don't think is accurate or correct.
A lot of atheists on here STATE political opinions I disagree with.
Atheism has FUCK ALL to do with these statements.  Nothing.
Due to that plainly obvious fact I've never felt the need to start a thread on this forum with a title "ATHEISM IS POLITCALLY WRONG AND LOGICALLY INCORRECT"
Everytime you're about to post a new post in this thread, go back and read the definition of atheism which you yourself used, and think carefully about it.
A rejection of belief in the existence of deities
Now if an atheist on this forum was to say "I know god doesn't exist, not just the myths around god, but any possibility of god."  I would be inclined to say that's an illogical statement to make.
That doesn't make me NOT an atheist, I still reject beliefs in god, but I can't say that I find it logical for someone else to state that they know God does not exist.  I'd view it with as much scepticism as I'd view a statement from someone who says they know god DOES exist.

What i find very funny Pablo is the fact that i never seen an atheist in this forum that criticize an other atheist for stating something that is not back up by solid evidence that is why i think that your analysis is worthless.
If you really mean what you say i would have seen your criticism when someone state something without evidence but not, i never seen that.
Now you are talking about SCEPTICISM.
What a load of bull.
Skepticism is like a fart.
If you really think that something doesn't make sense you face head on the issue by criticize him-her.
I noticed that when a theist state something that is not back up by evidence the atheists are always ready to jump on the theist neck but when an atheist do the same it never happen.
In English language this way of doing is better known as DISHONESTY.  

Ooops, another Bullshitometer just went BANG!

Rik, you know as much about how the English language works as you do about anything else you've ever excreted here.

I still want to know how "a lack of belief in [something]" is actually "a belief in [some other thing]".

It's not, which is why you may be struggling so much with it. Inserting a load of your own personal commentary on the kind of people who might be in such a position is irrelevant.

Try answering it as a general point. How is the "lack of a belief" a belief?

(October 28, 2015 at 11:14 am)JackRussell Wrote: Ooops, another Bullshitometer just went BANG!

They don't make them as they used to.

(October 28, 2015 at 10:43 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(October 27, 2015 at 10:54 pm)paulpablo Wrote: You're on repeat like a broken record.
Most atheists on here STATE things I don't think is accurate or correct.
A lot of atheists on here STATE political opinions I disagree with.
Atheism has FUCK ALL to do with these statements.  Nothing.
Due to that plainly obvious fact I've never felt the need to start a thread on this forum with a title "ATHEISM IS POLITCALLY WRONG AND LOGICALLY INCORRECT"
Everytime you're about to post a new post in this thread, go back and read the definition of atheism which you yourself used, and think carefully about it.
A rejection of belief in the existence of deities
Now if an atheist on this forum was to say "I know god doesn't exist, not just the myths around god, but any possibility of god."  I would be inclined to say that's an illogical statement to make.
That doesn't make me NOT an atheist, I still reject beliefs in god, but I can't say that I find it logical for someone else to state that they know God does not exist.  I'd view it with as much scepticism as I'd view a statement from someone who says they know god DOES exist.

What i find very funny Pablo is the fact that i never seen an atheist in this forum that criticize an other atheist for stating something that is not back up by solid evidence that is why i think that your analysis is worthless.
If you really mean what you say i would have seen your criticism when someone state something without evidence but not, i never seen that.
Now you are talking about SCEPTICISM.
What a load of bull.
Skepticism is like a fart.
If you really think that something doesn't make sense you face head on the issue by criticize him-her.
I noticed that when a theist state something that is not back up by evidence the atheists are always ready to jump on the theist neck but when an atheist do the same it never happen.
In English language this way of doing is better known as DISHONESTY.  

copy and paste some of the statements you have seen that have no solid evidence backing them up.  I will then proceed to publicly criticize those statements on this thread as not having any evidence.  It's as simple as that.

It won't effect my position as an atheist as you have been repeatedly told.  Nothing anyone says on this forum effects the actual definition of what atheism is.

Little Rik sure likes to make bare assertions and try to reverse the burden of proof.

This thread has been around so long there is really no way to know whether one has already shared a 'new' response.

So any way I think I agree with the thread's title. Atheism, in my case at least, is entirely unscientific. My non-belief in gods is not the result of any scientific considerations. Science doesn't enter into it. God, as a field of study, has not progressed even to the point of having well defined terms. There may be data pertaining to gods or there may not be. It all depends on what a god is and what would count as evidence for one.

For me silly stuff that no one can point to doesn't rise to the level anything deserving my immediate attention. Gods go in the same round file of non-urgent, non-important drivel as other mythical, fanciful or fictional source materials.

(October 28, 2015 at 7:06 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(October 28, 2015 at 10:43 am)Little Rik Wrote: What i find very funny Pablo is the fact that i never seen an atheist in this forum that criticize an other atheist for stating something that is not back up by solid evidence that is why i think that your analysis is worthless.
If you really mean what you say i would have seen your criticism when someone state something without evidence but not, i never seen that.
Now you are talking about SCEPTICISM.
What a load of bull.
Skepticism is like a fart.
If you really think that something doesn't make sense you face head on the issue by criticize him-her.
I noticed that when a theist state something that is not back up by evidence the atheists are always ready to jump on the theist neck but when an atheist do the same it never happen.
In English language this way of doing is better known as DISHONESTY.  

copy and paste some of the statements you have seen that have no solid evidence backing them up.  I will then proceed to publicly criticize those statements on this thread as not having any evidence.  It's as simple as that.
It won't effect my position as an atheist as you have been repeatedly told.  Nothing anyone says on this forum effects the actual definition of what atheism is.

Ok. let us copy and past something that i just choose by random on page 10 of this thread.
Here on the (27th September 2015, 08:57)Little Rik Wrote:
Has already been established that there is No evidence that with the physical death everything is over.

and Deepthunk reply...............Actually there's a mountain of evidence............

Further down on the same page Nonpareil write..........Consciousness is the result of physical processes.

but Nonpareil is not happy with this statement which is not based on pure evidence so he goes on with more unsubstantiated statements such as this.........And science is, by definition, capable of investigating anything that exists..........

By this statement Nonpareil include the consciousness but where is the evidence that something physical such as the physical science can investigate something that is not physical?

You see Pablo how much bullshit?
And i just choose a page at random.
Just imagine how much more bullshit there is in the hundreds of thread in this forum.
Thousand and thousand of unsubstantiated statements.
Just a pile of bulls all over the forum and none single critique from atheists to challenge these unsubstantiated claims.  

(October 29, 2015 at 12:13 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: This thread has been around so long there is really no way to know whether one has already shared a 'new' response.

So any way I think I agree with the thread's title.  Atheism, in my case at least, is entirely unscientific.  My non-belief in gods is not the result of any scientific considerations.  Science doesn't enter into it.  God, as a field of study, has not progressed even to the point of having well defined terms.  There may be data pertaining to gods or there may not be.  It all depends on what a god is and what would count as evidence for one.  
For me silly stuff that no one can point to doesn't rise to the level anything deserving my immediate attention.  Gods go in the same round file of non-urgent, non-important drivel as other mythical, fanciful or fictional source materials.

May i ask you what field of study you think God should be studied?
Do you mean with physical science or something else?  

Quote:Actually there's a mountain of evidence, like the fact that one never hear's again from one's deceased relatives. If grandma and grandpa are still there, why don't they come to visit their grand kids once a month, and I don't mean as an abstract feeling, but rather why don't they just sit and talk, if "god" forbids them, why would your god do such a thing?

Actually, I'm more agnostic than atheist in that I think there is an afterlife but its a natural biological phenomenon that exists regardless of religion, and I personally have a hunch that the behavior of electrons and two quantum phenomena known as quantum entanglement and the Kondo state will explain it, but even if that were true it wouldn't substantiate your religion. While I may not know all that's going on in the universe, I do know, as surly as I know that the earth orbits the sun, that your religion is bull.

Ok here's one of the statements you wanted me to provide criticism on.
I don't think there's any evidence provided that everything is over after death, only things that can be observed which show a lack of evidence that everything is over after death.  The poster even then pretty much admits this by saying he actually thinks there is something that happens to the human consciousness after death.

The poster of the statements also seems to think you're part of some religion aswell which I don't think you are.

You have to understand that this STILL has nothing to do with atheism.  And the title of this thread is messed up too.

You say atheism is unscientific, then make claims which have nothing to do with atheism, THEN say "but science can't observe everything."

Anything you claim outside of science is unscientific by definition, so you saying MAYBE there's a soul or whatever that zooms out of your body when you die then you go to the magic themepark or you're just a soul type thing out in whatever is past the observable universe.  That's an unscientific statement.